Pragmatism and the untenable dualism of means and ends: Why rational choice theory does not deserve paradigmatic privilege.

Even as rational choice theory is increasingly used in sociology, finding its way into such diverse subdisciplines as the sociology of the family, religion, gender, crime, race, stratification and economic sociology, it remains hotly contested. It has spurred a rancorous debate that, at its worst "degenerates into a caricatured contrast between a cold and calculating egoist engaged at the breakfast table in a cost-benefit assessment of the value of continuing his/her marriage and an oversocialized goody-two-shoes programmed in early childhood to cherish values and conform to norms that sustain the social order by serving the common good. Although details vary slightly across authors, the claim that rational choice theory can supply sociology with a unifying general theory is fundamentally undergirded by an overall agreement on its core elements. A particularly clear formulation is provided by sociologist James March, who asserts that there are essentially four parts to a theory of intentional choice.